Temer again suspends Asian tour: a ports' investigation has the president nervous

Brazilian president Michel Temer was again forced to suspend a trip to Asia which was scheduled for next week. The head of state had originally planned to travel last January but had to suspend it following on medical advice. Read full article

Comments

Federal Police investigators believe president Temer was involved in money laundering...invested in revamping several homes of the family.

Wouldn't be poetic justice if Michel Temer were implicated for illegal home improvement, similarly to the motive that gave judge Sergio Moro the conviction to take Lula da Silva out of the streets?

Don't hold your breath, though. The Brazilian justice system has mysterious designs that are out of reach for most common citizens.

The Brazilian justice system has mysterious designs that are out of reach for most common citizens.

'Out of reach for MOST common citizens'....I agree. Are you by any chance suggesting that Lula IS a 'common' citizen ? Well, if so, I'd like to know who has been paying his legal fees, which must amount to dozens of millions....IF he were a 'common' man (financially speaking, well understood) he would not be able to afford them. But when/ if asked who's paying, I'm sure he'll say a good friend of mine...

Oh, here you are! I thought you were never to comment under such an interesting story.

You are in a difficult task though, and reduced to chat about the cost of legal fees. How relevant!

Let's see another pearl:

Temer's turn will come.

How utterly disingenuous you are, JB. Of course Temer's turn will come...when he is no longer functional to the current process. Fact is, he is in full use of his powers as Brazil president and will remain so in spite of whatever evidence against him, while opponents as Lula are behind bars.

First you imply that Lula is a common man and that the mysterious designs of the Brazilian Justice System are out of his reach....because to you, he is a 'common man'...more like a common, rich crook. Then when I ask a simple question, how this 'common man” is paying the multimillionaire fees of his umpteen lawyers (?) you came back with some mumbo-jumbo that the cost of legal fees is irrrelevant ! yeah, irrelevant to you, to Lula, becos his stolen loot and rich friends are footing the bill.

Your arguments are so weak, it is almost hilarious when you attempt to imply that my having said Temer's turn will come is disingenous...because only a few days ago you were convinced Temer's turn would never come...

Fact is, he is in full use of his powers as Brazil president and will remain so in spite of whatever evidence against him, while opponents as Lula are behind bars...

Right, ..in full use of his powers as Brazil president and will remain so ... Don't know why I even bother to explain this to you AGAIN Reekie, but here goes, for the 'n' time : Current law, regarding political immunity, is protecting Temer (ONLY and while STILL in office) as it protected Lula (in 2007, making it impossible to get rid of him except through impeachment - which he wangled his way out of by negotiating with the PMDB....don't you remember that, in the aftermath of the mensalão ?...obviously and conveniently not), and these laws existed well before Lula, or Temer reached the presidency, therefore excluding the possibility that they were passed to favour either of them.

On the other hand, there have been (failed) attempts by Lula's friends in the STF, to make rulings which would favour him....such as 'changing' jurisprudence, established by the same court only two years ago (2016) - before Lula was a defendant - in order to keep him out of jail, NOW. Put that in your pipe...

You arguments are so weak, notes JB, who then comes up with a thorough technical analysis to explain why former president and most popular candidate Lula da Silva is in prison when suspected crook Michel Temer remains as president.

In spite of current law, regarding political immunity, is protecting Temer, the current president is in office only because of the soft coup operated against Dilma Rousseff--the necessary step to prevent Lula from running in October.

Dilma was impeached by the Congress, it had nothing to do with the courts, judges etc and was obviously politically motivated. Also, I'm pretty sure Lula had never suggested he would run for President again at that point. Either he was keeping quiet about his plans or it was those events that made him decide to do it.

@DT
It's no use trying to explain what Congress does and what the courts do....to EM... it's whatever he wants it to be.....then he twists the facts to fit his wishes.

It's been exhaustively, and uselessly, explained to Reekie that until Dilma was impeached, Lula was confident he would never be caught...which translates into no need to be a candidate....just name another 'post' to take Dilma's place, and keep on pulling the strings from behind the scenes.
Soon after Dilma's election end 2014, the toad declared he would not be a candidate for anything, ever again....it is obvious why he (suddenly) changed his mind.
Can't understand why that is beyond Reekie's comprehension.

If the PT, Lula and Dilma had not driven Brazil into it's worst recession in decades, Congress would have had little motive to impeach Dilma....when the politicians realized that the crisis would affect them as well, they did what they had to do......If to get rid of an incompetent president, who screwed the country and its population, is political, so be it...call it whatever you want, it's just a matter of semantics.

From my observations; I follow the following theories:
- It's a just question of time [took some time for Lulla too]
- ALL crooks are not politicians [but ALL the politicians ARE crooks (or crooked) and ultimately WILL be proven as NOT GUILTY - including Lulla (Willing to bet?)]
- They are in power; NOT to improve the Quality of Life of the masses but to improve the sizes of their wallets.
[I'm not even referring ONLY to the Brazilian Politicians]

In a democracy; Do you expect:
- a scandal-ridden person continuing to remain in power as a President?
- Billions donated by the investors - for the political campaigns [can't U guess what the REAL motive is?]
- being the largest importer of all kinds of illegal drugs?
- the latest military-purpose arms sold in supermarkets?

NO???
BUT it's already happening - isn't it - in the USA? So why should Brazil be so pitifully backward?

@JB
RE Lula, it's not at all guaranteed that whoever replaces him as a candidate will win, is it? So it's likely he saw how unpopular Dilma had become, and after her impeachment realised he couldn't just pick another successor but would have to stand himself if he wanted to put the PT back in power.

As for the impeachment, yes, what you described is political. It would be pretty normal in a parliamentary democracy, especially in countries with PR where government coalitions are the norm, but it's not supposed to happen in a presidential system. A president has more power than a PM and yours is directly elected so it's very different.

It would be the same if the US congress impeached Trump because they didn't like his decisions, something that doesn't seem *100%* implausible.

If the PT, Lula and Dilma had not driven Brazil into it's worst recession in decades, Congress would have had little motive to impeach Dilma.

Thank you for your sincerity, JB. Summarizing: Presidents who do not manage the economy well will be impeached.

Dilma may not have been the best managing the economy. Whether this were grounds for her demise, that's a different discussion. How many presidents around the world do you think would end their term if your peregrine doctrine were applied?

Again, Dilma's impeachment was the only way to get to Lula, and so it was stage one of a two-level strategy. Good for you: You said it well, succinctly and in your own words.

@EM
“Presidents who do not manage the economy well will be impeached.”

You'd like to get rid of Macri sooner rather than later, right? Just think how much more money he'll borrow before the end of his term, and how very hard it'll be for Argentina to pay off the debt. If the Peronist faction in Argentina managed to unite and found some wrong-doing they could use as a excuse to impeach Macri, would you really oppose it?

Again, Dilma's impeachment was the only way to get to Lula, and so it was stage one of a two-level strategy.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Dilma's impeachment was a way for the centrist/neo-liberal/whatever you want to call them faction to take power immediately and control the government and economy, and also perhaps an attempt to insulate themselves from the ongoing corruption investigations. Making Lula ineligible to run would be a secondary goal as it removes the biggest obstacle to that group keeping power (but it by no means guarantees they will).

So far it's only a theory - theoretically; any candidate who gets elected by the virtue of the promises made to the voters; can be removed from his/her responsibilities if the promises aren't fulfilled, is inefficient, &/or corrupt.

@EM
Thank you for your sincerity, JB. Summarizing: “Presidents who do not manage the economy well will be impeached.”

Reekie, you can always count on my sincerity....whether you like it or not. As to your above compliment, let's forget politics just for 'one' moment ....I'd like to know what's wrong with getting rid of a president who does not manage the economy well ? Isn't that what happens to Prime Ministers in civilized countries, with Parliamentary systems ? One of the reasons why Brazil should get rid of this stinking presidential system....it makes getting rid of a bad government a national trauma.

But just to clarify, once again, for your exclusive benefit : Dilma was not impeached only for political reasons : she forced the 2 federal banks, Banco do Brasil & Caixa Economica Federal” to make huge illegal loans to her government (illegal because the request was not made to, nor approved by Congress), to hide enormous deficits (2014, 2015)....she then did her best to hide these loans (in cahoots with the banks, as they did not register these loans in their annual balance sheets) and when she could no longer deny the accusation / charge - an IMPEACHABLE offense, as foreseen in the Constitution - then and only then the whole thing took on a political dimension...and she was kicked out. Why do you insist on ignoring this ? Or weren't you aware ?

Dilma may not have been the best managing the economy......not the best ? she was disastrous.....or don't you know that she (and the PT, including your hero, Lula) caused the worst recession in 80 years ? Reekie, stop twisting the facts to suit your misguided, ideological narrative.
If the PMDB saw the opportunity to pounce on her, it was only because she offered it......but I suppose you would have preferred her to have stayed in power, and bankrupted Brazil irremediably ? What's with you leftist populists ??